A very unfair survey

[Chop!]

When we were about to buy our pair from brokerage at Aqueduct Marina it was our first time buying a boat.

We didn't know any surveyors and so Aqueduct said they knew a good surveyor, so they booked John Compton of Small Boat Surveys.

We paid for a hull only survey on the butty and once we'd established that the motor's hull was sound (except for two small areas on the bow that needed over-plating) we told John to go ahead with the full survey.

He said that it was OK but said he couldn't test the gas system, even though it had a bubble-tester, he also said that, while all the electrics worked, they were 'dated' our insurance then refused to cover us for claims involving gas or electrics. As the boats were on hard standing and Freyja is raw water cooled he said he couldn't start or check the engine.

When he finished the survey we received was in the name of Nick Beech of Aqueduct Marina, even though it was us, not Aqueduct, who paid for it.

While preparing to clean and paint the bilge, I found :-

The bottoms of the deckdrain pipes had rusted away where they went through the swim, and that they were letting in water

The weedhatch lid hold down brackets had rusted away leaving only a small fragment holding the lid on.

The diesel tank had rusted through behind the weedhatch and was leaking diesel

The gas locker drain (which was right down near the water level) had been letting in water in the past, causing the floor to rust through and, more seriously, the bulkhead had rusted so badly that water could have sunk us or a gas leak would have come straight into the accommodation, risking a very loud and disastrous bang!

 

Why haven't I brought up these concerns with the surveyor or the marina? I hear you ask.I have, I sent copies of photographic evidence and of remedial work undertaken to both parties by e-mail. I received only a confirmation of receipt from Small Boat Surveys and no response from Aqueduct.

I have looked to see if John Compton is a member of a professional body but if he is, it's not shown on his website.

 

So do the panel think it is normal for the survey to made out in Nick's name? Given that the terms & conditions state that 'Only the person named on the survey has any redress'

 

Shouldn't he have been able to check our gas with our bubble-tester, even if he isn't gas-safe?

 

A pre-purchase survey is not cheap, given that we'd paid so much, shouldn't we have been able to buy safe boats, free from all these dangerous faults?

 

We are now wondering if there are any other disasters that he missed.

 

So as both parties have chosen not to respond I now feel free to name and shame. I wouldn't want other first-timers to be hung out to dry as we have been.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm sorry to say your experiences mirror my own.

 

I tried to start legal action but was informed by my (Marine specialist) Solicitor I would be wasting my money as everything had a 'get-out' clause.

 

I have bought a number of boats since and have found that buying wth cash, and using my experience allows a negotiated price to cover any likely costs - surveyors - no way !!!

[CaptainJacks]

We repaired a boat that was brought to our moorings from Aqueduct Marina.

The surveyor they use is not truly independent hes a friend of the owner and the quality of workmanship is questionable.

For example the customer paid for a service with filter changes their mechanic put a plastic bung on the fuel filter which helped the boat fail its BSS.

They also left a hose coming from the sump just folded over unplugged resulting in the sump dumping all its oil in the bilge ten minutes up the canal despite charging top whack for engine servicing luckily the customer checked on the engine and had some oil.

Despite this Aqueduct had the audacity to suggest the customer rang canal breakdown or book the boat in for repair!

Ask for your money back.

[Arthur Marshall]

I've always found surveys a total waste of money, both on the boat and on a house. Full of weasel words, obvious things missed and perfectly OK things marked down - the surveyor on my last house basically kept stressing that he didn't like the way it was decorated. The boat survey was useless. A friend had a full hull survey done and got a VGC report a week before about a yard of it rusted through. So many disclaimers that you can't actually sue them for anything - I've always reckoned it's a scam cooked up by the insurance companies who insist on them.

[CaptainJacks]

On the flip side a good surveyor is a boat brokers nightmare and worth their weight in gold.

[John V]

It is unfortunate but understandable that you only find out the good surveyors by talking to lots of people and taking note of their experiences

 

I was fortunate to be put in touch with an excellent surveyor who did the surveys that I needed for years, unfortunately he has now retired and I haven't yet made my mind up who I will use for my next insurance survey.

 

The last two purchases I made were without survey as I am fairly confident in my own abilities to spot faults (we can all get caught out though)

[Chop!]

Reading the small print, it seems a waste of time to even try to claim

[Southern Star]

I bought my boat from Aqueduct Marina, and I would have to say that I have no complaints whatsoever about them. They recommended a surveyor called Peter Tindall, I checked his reputation on this forum and he was recommended by other members here before I agreed with their recommendation.

 

I'm fairly mechanically knowledgeable myself, and after a week with the boat I would say that the survey was accurate.

 

 

 

I can't see how a raw water boat could be started if it was out of the water.

 

I have no idea why the survey was in Nick Beech's name.He is the boat sales person at Aqueduct Marina, we met him in person three times and I spoke to him on numerous occasions in the buying process, I'm a businessman myself and I can smell a liar a mile off, and he never struck me as anything less than totally honest and on the level.

 

I think you just have to accept that when you buy a boat, the previous owner may have neglected essential work for a very long time and you will have to pay for the catch-up.

[Naughty Cal]

On the flip side a good surveyor is a boat brokers nightmare and worth their weight in gold.

Exactly. Any good surveyor will get you at least the cost of the survey back plus some more bargaining power on the purchase price.

[Chop!]

 

 

I can't see how a raw water boat could be started if it was out of the water.

 

Hosepipe attached to the intake pipe? Water container?

 

I have no idea why the survey was in Nick Beech's name.He is the boat sales person at Aqueduct Marina, we met him in person three times and I spoke to him on numerous occasions in the buying process, I'm a businessman myself and I can smell a liar a mile off, and he never struck me as anything less than totally honest and on the level.

 

I like Nick, just don't like being taken for a mug

 

I think you just have to accept that when you buy a boat, the previous owner may have neglected essential work for a very long time and you will have to pay for the catch-up.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was the point, you pay a surveyor a big wedge to check your prospective purchase for hull thickness and any serious or dangerous faults

Owning vintage bikes, bubblecars, limos and hearses over the years I am no mechanical pleb either. And after a week I hadn't had a chance to find any of these faults.

As first time buyers everyone on here said make sure you use a surveyor, I thought there would be some sort of guarantee that the survey actually did what it was supposed to do. Silly me.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Chop!

[CaptainJacks]

 

 

 

 

 

I can't see how a raw water boat could be started if it was out of the water.

 

Hosepipe attached to the intake pipe? Water container?

 

I have no idea why the survey was in Nick Beech's name.He is the boat sales person at Aqueduct Marina, we met him in person three times and I spoke to him on numerous occasions in the buying process, I'm a businessman myself and I can smell a liar a mile off, and he never struck me as anything less than totally honest and on the level.

 

I like Nick, just don't like being taken for a mug

 

I think you just have to accept that when you buy a boat, the previous owner may have neglected essential work for a very long time and you will have to pay for the catch-up.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was the point, you pay a surveyor a big wedge to check your prospective purchase for hull thickness and any serious or dangerous faults

Owning vintage bikes, bubblecars, limos and hearses over the years I am no mechanical pleb either. And after a week I hadn't had a chance to find any of these faults.

As first time buyers everyone on here said make sure you use a surveyor, I thought there would be some sort of guarantee that the survey actually did what it was supposed to do. Silly me.

You can complain to the surveyors professional body for example if he's a IIMF qualified surveyor contact them.

If he's not qualified he's not insured to survey!

[mark99]

Best to park the issue and move on. Don't let the buggers get you down.

[Alan de Enfield]

There ar dozens of "Surveyors Associations" and it is not mandatory to belong to any of them - they can even set up their own Association and be the only member.

 

I'm sure there are some reputable surveyors but it takes 'one bad apple to get the barrel a bad name'.

 

As a recent example, having a BSS done by an 'over qualified' surveyor (he appeared to have nore degrees than a compass), he took less than 30 minutes to do a BSS, and passed it - I found at least 6 items on which it could have failed (wire cable tied to gas pipes, no "Fuel switch off" plate, etc etc.

When I mentioned this previously it was stated he was probably just showing 'common-sense' - however, if requirements were in the BSS inspection, then they should be complied with.

 

Surveyors - jobs for the boys.

[Bee]

I have just looked at the pics. on your blog and I have to say that the surveyor simply failed to do his job. Those are exactly the things that he is supposed to be looking for. No one can be expected to find faults hidden behind panelling but if he had any experience at all he would have found most of them. Personally I would have a word with citizens advice and also a word with trading standards as you have paid for a service that you did not receive. At least you would get free advice and know a bit more without dipping a toe into the expensive world of lawyers which is really only for the brave.

[CaptainJacks]

There ar dozens of "Surveyors Associations" and it is not mandatory to belong to any of them - they can even set up their own Association and be the only member.

 

I'm sure there are some reputable surveyors but it takes 'one bad apple to get the barrel a bad name'.

 

As a recent example, having a BSS done by an 'over qualified' surveyor (he appeared to have nore degrees than a compass), he took less than 30 minutes to do a BSS, and passed it - I found at least 6 items on which it could have failed (wire cable tied to gas pipes, no "Fuel switch off" plate, etc etc.

When I mentioned this previously it was stated he was probably just showing 'common-sense' - however, if requirements were in the BSS inspection, then they should be complied with.

 

Surveyors - jobs for the boys.

 

There ar dozens of "Surveyors Associations" and it is not mandatory to belong to any of them - they can even set up their own Association and be the only member.

 

I'm sure there are some reputable surveyors but it takes 'one bad apple to get the barrel a bad name'.

 

As a recent example, having a BSS done by an 'over qualified' surveyor (he appeared to have nore degrees than a compass), he took less than 30 minutes to do a BSS, and passed it - I found at least 6 items on which it could have failed (wire cable tied to gas pipes, no "Fuel switch off" plate, etc etc.

When I mentioned this previously it was stated he was probably just showing 'common-sense' - however, if requirements were in the BSS inspection, then they should be complied with.

 

Surveyors - jobs for the boys.

To my knowledge there are two qualifications the Ydsa diploma or the IIMS diploma at least if you want to be insured to hammer test a hull.

If you don't have the above qualification you won't get insurance cover. If you claim to be a marine surveyor and survey without insurance you could be found legally incompetent as marine insurance requires you to have at least the above qualification.

Those qualifications take at least a year to study and cost from £3500 to complete so its not certainly a vocation for any old numbnuts unless they are falsely claiming to be something they are not which in the OP case may well be the problem.

But Aqueduct may be a member as a boat yard so have covered their mate under their insurance hence why the survey is in their name!

They have used a loophole or the surveyor is not qualified but as the survey is not showing as commissioned by the OP its not worth the paper it's written on.

Edited September 23, 2014 by CaptainJacks

[Southern Star]

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was the point, you pay a surveyor a big wedge to check your prospective purchase for hull thickness and any serious or dangerous faults

 

Yes, you do, but the surveyor doesn't pay for the remedial work, he just tells you what's wrong with the boat and then you pay to have it put right. A surveyor won't pay for your boat to be over-plated simply because he has told you that it needs to be over-plated. Owning a boat is an expensive business, and it's best if you get used to that from the word Go.

 

Sorry!

[kevinl]

Have a look at the the thread here

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?s=9517916a3255a21181da4f89dbcd78ac&showtopic=69686&hl=turbo

I stand by my comment to Mtb

"I'm not saying you're wrong Mike but until someone goes to court and tests it we'll never know. I think you have an excellent case for suing under the unfair terms in contracts 1999 specifically "a term saying the trader is not responsible if they don't do what they should do under the contract". If I contract you to survey a boat and you miss something significant then you are in clear breach of contract and as such can be sued irrespective of anything in the contract to the contrary, it just need testing that's all, I'd be confident of a win if it was me. Where the survey was commissioned and paid for by a previous owner I doubt you would be able to do anything without their cooperation."

I can't understand why so many on here tell you to forget it, you've been ripped off and you have rights. If you were dealing with a big company they may back down and pay you off but if it ever gets to court and it is proved a surveyor is in spite of any contract (which would be nullified by the Unfair Terms & Contract laws) then surveyors would all shut down. If you think surveyors (their weasel word contracts) can get out of it Google "sue a surveyor" and you'll find plenty of people who'll sue a house surveyor no win, no fee, we need them to get into the boating world.

K

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Yes, you do, but the surveyor doesn't pay for the remedial work, he just tells you what's wrong with the boat and then you pay to have it put right. A surveyor won't pay for your boat to be over-plated simply because he has told you that it needs to be over-plated. Owning a boat is an expensive business, and it's best if you get used to that from the word Go.

 

 

You are correct , but in this case (and my case, and others) the surveyor did not report on 'what was wrong with the boat'

[CaptainJacks]

Have a look at the the thread here

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=69686&hl=turbo

I stand by my comment to Mtb

"I'm not saying you're wrong Mike but until someone goes to court and tests it we'll never know. I think you have an excellent case for suing under the unfair terms in contracts 1999 specifically "a term saying the trader is not responsible if they don't do what they should do under the contract". If I contract you to survey a boat and you miss something significant then you are in clear breach of contract and as such can be sued irrespective of anything in the contract to the contrary, it just need testing that's all, I'd be confident of a win if it was me. Where the survey was commissioned and paid for by a previous owner I doubt you would be able to do anything without their cooperation."

I can't understand why so many on here tell you to forget it, you've been ripped off and you have rights. If you were dealing with a big company they may back down and pay you off but if it ever gets to court and it is proved a surveyor is in spite of any contract (which would be nullified by the Unfair Terms & Contract laws) then surveyors would all shut down. If you think surveyors (their weasel word contracts) can get out of it Google "sue a surveyor" and you'll find plenty of people who'll sue a house surveyor no win, no fee, we need them to get into the boating world.

K

I'm not defending anyone for negligent work but I do think some comments are a bit tar brush.

Marine surveys are very different to a house survey as so many genuine defects cannot be seen. For example I am working on relining an old springer that had a good hull survey of 5.2 mm but when I lifted the floor something the surveyor would have not been able to do or allowed to do I found deep pitting requiring welding work. It's for defects like this that a surveyors insurance needs to protect them if the hull sank on impact due to the unknown which is reasonable.

I think the key is to ensure the surveyor is insured.

Moving forward for the OP I would go after Aqueduct and ask for a refund as the survey is not fit for purpose as it legally incorrect as its not addressed to the independent customer and therefore as a survey is void in terms.

The surveyor would then have to rereport to yourself then you can hold him legally accountable.

It has nothing to do with the survey content as the survey has clearly not followed professional procedure.

Aqueduct do not refund or have their mate address the survey to you bang them with trading standards.

Also request the name of the surveyors professional body stating you wish to check he is qualified and insured to survey.

Again if refused you have them bang to rights under trading standards.

Edited September 24, 2014 by CaptainJacks

[Athy]

.

 

 

 

I can't see how a raw water boat could be started if it was out of the water.

 

.

At Fox's marina they use a hosepipe to feed water from a bucket to the engine's cooling system.

when I lifted the floor something the surveyor would have not been able to do or allowed to do

Eh?

The surveyor who carried out the inspection of my Springer for the buyer was certainly able to lift the floorboards and, seeing no reason why he wasn't allowed to, did. I'm pleased he did, as it enabled him to see that the shallow-vee bottom was internally sound.

 

I just wish he'd put the buggers back in place afterwards!

[phill]

I'm not defending anyone for negligent work

 

I found deep pitting requiring welding work.

What a load of rubbish.

 

What is the point of having a survey if it doesn't find defects like this ? You would be as well tossing a coin.

 

Of course a surveyor should examine the hull inside and out everywhere that is physically possible and extrapolate using experience and expert knowledge to where he can't and the inside of the hull is crucial to that.

 

Would you go to sea in a boat a surveyor had said that he couldn't guarantee the integrity of the whole hull?

 

To the OP : I would take a punt in the small claims court. At the very least if you can show you paid for the survey and it was addressed to Aqueduct this is a breach of contract. The small claims procedure is relatively cheap and person-friendly. It also seems to me that, if you can prove you commissioned the survey ( by paying for it, invoice) then the contract is with you and his legal responsibility is which you and any negligence ( such as the weedhatch) he will be liable for. No terms and conditions will protect him if he can be shown to be negligent.

Edited September 24, 2014 by phill

[CaptainJacks]

At Fox's marina they use a hosepipe to feed water from a bucket to the engine's cooling system.

 

Eh?

The surveyor who carried out the inspection of my Springer for the buyer was certainly able to lift the floorboards and, seeing no reason why he wasn't allowed to, did. I'm pleased he did, as it enabled him to see that the shallow-vee bottom was internally sound.

 

I just wish he'd put the buggers back in place afterwards!

Yes but in some cases it would be impossible if there was laminate flooring down for example.

[phill]

Yes but in some cases it would be impossible if there was laminate flooring down for example.

Then what's the point in having a survey?

[patty-ann]

I think Bee's comments about paying for a service you did not get are valid.

There is no loss to sending carefully worded letter as to their responsibilities and failures such of.

I, myself would stop short of solicitors unless no win no fee and even them are ?

Either that or set aside otherwise it will eat at you and spoil enjoyment of your boat.

 

The survey on house I have just brought failed to identify quite significant issues...eg said no damp...hmmm sitting looking at damp up the walls now artex off, a wall collapsed due to damp but I have chosen not to embroil myself in a fight to get money back since it taints this place and trying so hard to be optimistic...oh and kitchen wall seeping.

 

 

Whatever you chose, good luck.

[CaptainJacks]

What a load of rubbish.

 

What is the point of having a survey if it doesn't find defects like this ? You would be as well tossing a coin.

 

Of course a surveyor should examine the hull inside and out everywhere that is physically possible and extrapolate using experience and expert knowledge to where he can't and the inside of the hull is crucial to that.

 

To the OP : I would take a punt in the small claims court. At the very least if you can show you paid for the survey and it was addressed to Aqueduct this is a breach of contract. The small claims procedure is relatively cheap and person-friendly.

You contradict yourself Phil you said where its "physically possible" so what if its not possible to lift the floor?

It's not reasonable to lift the floor of a fully fitted boat on the off chance you might find a pin prick in 40 foot of steel hence the requirement for survey terminology to protect the surveyor against the unknown.

No broker in the land would allow a surveyor to pull up fixed flooring.

Far from rubbish my friend.